The Local Motive

Living and working sustainably

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:51:00 +0000

Wednesday, April 4 will be a busy day for people interested in sustainable living.

Starting at 5:30 p.m. The Healthy Communities Forum of 2012 will host a seminar on "Walking, Biking, Electric Driving - What are the health benefits?" the seminar will be in the Council Chambers of San Mateo City Hall, 330 W. 20th Avenue. Space is limited, reserve your seat online. The seminar has a host of organizers including:

Then at 7 p.m. at Carpenters Hall, 1153 Chess Drive, Foster City, Kevin Danaher from Global Exchange will will talk about how climate change is leading us and the tech industry into the future. His message will be uplifting and inspiring the San Mateo County Democracy of America Club. Kevin is also executive director of Recology in San Francisco.

Who is the money talking for on Saltworks?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:02:00 +0000

I read the story about DMB spinning off its Redwood City office into a separate entity. as I was mulling it over there were two axioms that came to mind:

"Actions speak louder than words," and "Money talks."

The controversy over the Saltworks project is fueled by two big gorillas. DMB and Save the Bay. Both are spending a lot of money to win the hearts and minds of Redwood City regarding the future of the Cargill salt-harvesting facility. Save the Bay has been driving the opposition to the project with sound bites designed to raise the hackles of reactionaries while DMB leads the proponents actionable proposals.

The primary argument about the project has been that DMB is only in it for the money, which is a really hard argument to counter considering that DMB and Cargill are for-profit organizations. If they didn't think they could make a profit on the enterprise, they would have left long ago. But when you stop to think about it, their's is a long term view. they have spent a lot so far and have made nothing. But Save the Bay has spent not nearly as much, yet has made a profit of 7 figures in donations to their cause. The Saltworks project has been very lucrative for Save the Bay.

Now there is a generalization that a for-profit organization is only bad and a non-profit is only good. But I don't like generalizations. Lets take a look at how DMB has responded to generalizations and demands in the soundbites I've heard from Save the Bay over the past several years.

"We need public input before we'll consider it to it." So they do two years of outreach.
"We need wetland restoration." So they include 400 acres of wetland restoration in the project.
"DMB rigged the sessions." So the City does another year of additional outreach and a few months into the formal planning process, DMB withdrew their application to do even more revision based on public input.
"There is not enough water for the project." So they come up with a way to transfer water rights from Southern California to the Bay Area.
"We don't believe their solution to the water problem will work." So they adapt the proposal to use and restore groundwater supplies.
"DMB is a outside organization." So they spin off the company to form a local organization.

In pretty much every argument, DMB has offered a reasonable solution and has been open to suggestion. The final opposition response is: "DMB is evil.

For me, the axiom that comes to mind is "Actions speak louder than words." DMB has been reasonable in the discussion.

Then we have Save the Bay. Based on their assessment, the loss of 700 acres of the Saltworks to retail and housing development will destroy the opportunity to restore 40,000 acres of wetlands currently available for restoration. And to them it makes more sense to spend the amount of money it would take to restore all 40,000 acres on stopping the Saltworks project, than on restoring the actual 40,000 available. I'm not sure how they come to this conclusion but their feeling on this is so strong that they have decided to make this project their Number One issue, which is probably why they've been silent on:

The current development at Hunters Point where a bridge is being built over a current wetlands.
The retail and housing development on Treasure Island, a piece of real estate created entirely by landfill in the middle of the bay that is less seismically stable then all of Foster City.
A new industrial development being proposed for Brisbane on current wetlands.
The America's Cup project in San Francisco that every local and state environmental group has come out against... except for Save the Bay.
The recent EPA finding against Sims Metal for direct pollution of the Bay at the Port of Redwood City.

They obviously have to pick their battles with limited resources, right? That's what I thought, too, until I went to the Save the Bay website and found that Save the Bay has been hired as the "environmental consultant" for the America's Cup project and that Sims Metal is a major contributor to Save the Bay.

Considering how closely tied Save the Bay is to the San Francisco leadership is it that hard to imagine that their focus is based primarily on revenue and not the welfare of the bay? As the saying goes, "Money talks."

So why hasn't DMB decided to go the route of buying their opponent's approval? You'd have to ask them, but "actions do speak louder than words" and even if they did, it might be like killing the golden goose for Save the Bay to take them up on the offer.

John Cleese explains it all

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:06:00 +0000

Live/work opportunities preferred by younger professionals

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:43:00 +0000

More studies are coming out showing that you professionals prefer to live in places where their work, home and social lives can be consolidated geographically, and part of that has to do with their preferred method of communication -- texting.

Throughout the developed world, young people use readily available mass transit rather than cars to get around, which eliminates the need for laws preventing texting while driving, but young Americans often lack that option. Rather than drive and text, they are finding ways to live closer to work and play allowing them to walk or bike to where they want to go.

That explains why so many startups like to focus location in cities like San Francisco and San Jose, but costs in those areas can be prohibitive not only for the companies but for the employees as well. And as the company grows, available space becomes limited as well. Hence the reason companies like Facebook have started looking to less developed areas of the Peninsula where lots of space is available from the shells of the Web 1.0 burnouts.

In a recent issue of Wired, Clive Thompson says we need to make changes to how we transport ourselves by investing in mass transit over autos, but the case can also be made for changing how we plan our cities and towns to accommodate the eventual growing economy. We need not only local mass transit but placed for people to live that allow them to get to work without cars. At present, most of the employees of Facebook, Electronic Arts and Oracle live outside of Redwood City and either drive to work of use an ad hoc transit system that is at the breaking point. And none of the major employers are close to the so-called traffic corridor, unless you mean the freeways. Building homes on that corridor are good for people who commute out of town, but not so much for those who come into our communities.

Menlo Park's "train wreck" planning takes another hit

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:01:00 +0000

I'm giving a big Christmas shout out to one of my "fans," who goes by the nom de plume Reality Check, for alerting me to yet another nail in the coffin for hopes to restore the Cargill Saltworks site in entirety. Recently I wrote that the Facebook move to the old Sun Microsystems headquarters in Menlo Park was going to dump a ton of traffic onto 101, long before adjacent housing can be developed to encourage living and working in the same neighborhoods. Reality Check (RC) chimed in by reminding me that the Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties transit districts are dusting off plans to provide commuter rail service over the Dumbarton Bridge route to handle the growing commuter population coming into Menlo Park. Buried deep in the reports the RC linked to was the cost: $700,000,000, conservatively. That doesn't count costs for taking out the old rail bridge, currently unused.
The reports said a little over $300,000,000 has been identified as available for the project leaving a minimum, conservatively, of $400,000,000 needed to be raised through bonds, tax increases, bridge toll increases, etc.
So why does that hurt the effort to restore Cargill's land? Because the amount that needs to be raised to purchase and restore that land is about $400,000,000, conservatively, with the land cost being below market value.
So what we have now are two public works efforts competing for public funding approval in the immediate 5 years for a total cost of more than $1 billion. By the way, that's the price tag for restoring all the land CURRENTLY available for restoration in the SF Bay. Now we're looking at a price tag of over $2 billion. And you know what they say: a billion here, a billion there... pretty soon it adds up to real money.
There's another problem with the plan to open rail service to Menlo Park from the Newark area. Who's going to ride it?
The Newark and Fremont housing expansion was fed by the growth and success of Sun Microsystems and Tyco, the current target of the Facebook headquarters. People bought houses across the Dumbarton because it was the closest place to find affordable housing. The Sun employees are now making the commute to Oracle in Redwood City and the Tyco employees are not as numerous as they used to be, but they are still making the schlep. There isn't a lot of housing available for the Facebook people, most of whom have used CalTrain to get to the current Facebook HQ in Palo Alto... because they live along the corridor from San Francisco to Palo Alto.
Do you think those social media hipsters are going to give up their digs in SF to move to East Bay suburbia? Probably not. And since CalTrain goes nowhere near the new HQ, you can count on them hoping into their hybrids and making the commute down 101, carpooling for sure, but not riding a train from Newark.
And on top of all this we have to remember that we are still going to have to build levees to protect all the inland areas from seal level rise because the restored wetlands will not be enough.
So our choices are:

$2 billion+ of increased taxes and indebtedness for a rail line that won't be used, restored wetlands, 101 gridlock and potential $3.5 billion for levee building around the bay at the cost of $7 million a mile (based on the 500-mile bay shoreline.)
$1 billion+ for complete wetland restoration, no rail line, gridlock plus levee construction.
Just levee construction and gridlock.
Something else that includes cooperating with "evil developers," creates jobs, restores wetlands, pays for levees, reduces gridlock, provides additional tax revenue sources without increased taxes...

So thanks for the heads up, RC. I'm really enjoying watching this train wreck Menlo Park is foisting on the mid-Peninsula.
Note: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has recommended that funding currently earmarked for the Dumbarton rail project be diverted to expand AC Transit service from Newark to Menlo Park. If Caltrans accepts the recommendation, that essentially shelves the rail service project again. What should be noted is an increase in bus service from the east bay to support the Facebook needs would required a minimum of 40 buses to transverse the bridge twice a day during commute hours.

Facebook and Menlo Park make Saltworks inevitiable

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 01:18:00 +0000

I would imagine that the opponents of bayside development on the midpeninsula were passing bricks through their lower intestinal track when the news came out that the Facebook facility in Menlo Park is going to dump close to 10,000 commuters onto 101 in a couple of years.

Facebook is planning on moving their headquarters into those buildings and several others across the street in a former Tyco complex that will be three times the number of workers that Sun had there. There is virtually no public transit available which means those workers will be driving in and out every day. Facebook is pushing Menlo Park to lift the current cap of 3600 workers and 7,000 trips to 15,000 trips. All of this traffic will be spewed out to University Avenue, Willow Road and good old Marsh Road.

Anyone remember all the screaming about how many cars will be put on the road 30 years from when the Saltworks development is finished? Well we are gonna get all of that before the Saltworks plan gets out of the planning commission.

So what's the answer? Well, we need to expand public transit to the bay side area to get people out of their cars. We need to have housing developments to hold about 30,000 more people between Menlo Park and Redwood City. We need to build levees to protect those homes and industries that will be flooded by sea level rise. We need to restore the wetlands in those areas so our levees don't need to be 6 feet tall. And we need a whole lot of property tax revenue to pay for it all.

And you have the Menlo Park City Council, those wonderful anti-development politicians, to thank for it all.

HSR PR? LOL!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:52:00 +0000

News is out that the California High-Speed Rail Authority spent $12.5 million on public relations over the past two years.

$12.5 million? Are you kidding me?

I've been in the communications business for 40 years. I've known billion-dollar corporations that don''t spend a 10th of that on PR and get much better results. WTH is going on at the CHSRA?

Reading deeper I learned that significant portions of the budget were spent on "politically connected consultants" made up of former politicians.

Again, are you kidding me?

Right now we live in a nation where long-term politicians know diddly squat about communicating with their constituency. Spending money on people who are going to talk to get advice and counsel from politicians is a great way to make sure you DON'T relate to the general electorate.

Personally, I am in complete favor of high-speed rail having used it overseas. I know the benefit and value of such systems. I'm also thoroughly in favor of fully funding other public transit systems.

But really, folks, it isn't that hard to reach the common people and get your story across in today's world. It isn't hard to get them to give you constructive input either. The first step is get out of the inbred world of politics and get ahold of some people who know how to engage with reality. My rates are a LOT more reasonable than what you've been paying, believe me.

Merry Christmas, Philip Erro

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:41:00 +0000

Philip Erro has been making the rounds in the local media decrying the "Cargill-Redwood City Water Grab" regarding previous conceptual proposals about trading water rights in Southern California to increase Redwood City's allotment from the Hetch Hetchy system. I thought I'd take a moment to ease Phil's mind and let him know that all of that was tabled indefinitely over the summer.

Saltworks developer DMB decided around August not to pursue the rights transfer and returned to a concept that was remarkable similar to what Phil was proposing: designing new development to allow rainwater to percolate into the aquifer. He has a really great point and knows something of what he's talking about from his stance as a Fresno almond orchard owner (living in Redwood City). Those of us who have spent significant time in the Central Valley agricultural industry (me as a reporter covering water districts in the north valley) understand the importance of water conservation and distribution.

Now I understand that Phil was really trying to provide yet another reason why the Saltworks project should not be allowed to come out of the conceptual stage, but he – as have so many other opponents of the project – actually came up with a really good argument in favor of it.

As I pointed out, Phil states that the best way to recharge the aquifer is to build "new streets, parking lots and driveways could be constructed with permeable concrete or some other porous, not toxic material." That's a great idea. Unfortunately, there are not enough projects on the table, west of 101, that include "new streets, parking lots and driveways" to have any appreciable effect on the aquifer. There is one project, east of 101, that lies directly in the runoff flow from Redwood City, Menlo Park, Atherton and Woodside, that actually does plan for pumping rainwater and grey water directly into the aquifer; as well as implement the widespread use of cisterns. This project would boost Redwood City's native water supply beyond the need for the proposed development and offset the Hetch Hetchy.

Guess which project it is.

There are a couple of issues we need to address, however, where Phil doesn't get it quite right.

First, in his letters and op-ed pieces, he talks about "smart growth." Here is a reality that we all seem to ignore. Over the next 30 years, Redwood City's population is going to grow by about 50,000 people. We can't get around that fact. Right now, we don't have adequate housing for the people we have. We need about 15,000 new units in the very near future by federal mandate. "Smart growth" is figuring out how to meet that requirement. We have several new housing units in the planning stage on El Camino and Veteran Blvd right now. Has anyone considered what this projects are going to require for water? Believe me, porous driveways and cisterns ain't gonna cut it.

Second, Phil seems to think that the water transfer is going to cause a problem for Kern County residents. Let's be clear. Kern County residents don't own those water rights. DMB owns them. They, in turn, bought those rights from the private family that owns them. What DMB is proposing is releasing that water into the Kern County system in exchange for diverting the water that would normally flow from Northern California to Kern County to Redwood City, a Northern California community. Does it make sense to send water 500 miles south when it already exists at the needed location?

But the good news for Phil is that his requests have already been considered and will be granted if DMB can ever get their project approved.

Study says we need wetland restoration now

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:21:00 +0000

A new study, issued by the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) Conservation Science, says we need to get moving fast on wetland restoration or risk losing everything we've done already. The problem we still face, however, is how we are going to pay for it.

Bair Island will be under water without help from

someone other than government

The study predicts that if sea level rises only 1.6 feet over the century, the best case scenario, then the salt marshes currently under restoration should be sufficient to survive. But the worst case scenario of 5.4 feet and about anything in between means we will lose 93 percent of the restored marshes in the bay, which comprises the habitat for tens of thousands of migratory birds and endangered species.
What makes this particularly problematic is that there absolutely no hope that sufficient public funding will be available for the necessary restoration, nor is it available from the dozens of environmental organizations that are spending their available funds lobbying legislators.
The study recommends that all available resources be spent on areas with current high sedimentary deposits in undeveloped lowland areas, which (amazingly enough) eliminates the Saltworks site from the priority list. The PRBO focuses most concern on the wetlands in the north bay closest to the Golden Gate.
What does that mean for Redwood City? First, we need to look seriously into what it is going to cost to build levees. It won't cheap. Estimates from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are $7.9 million per mile of bay front and Redwood City has about 10 miles of bay front. So $80 million or close to 3 years of Redwood City's current total budget. That doesn't include what it would cost to acquire and restore the Saltworks site in it's entirety, nor the continued restoration of Bair Island.
A few weeks ago, Tyler Berding (a lawyer who represents homeowner groups) wrote an opinion piece in the San Mateo Daily Journal in opposition to the Saltworks posed the question, “Who will be responsible for keeping these massive flood control improvements working in the years to come?”
Well, Tyler, that's a really good question. Unless we have some sort of significant help from some "evil" corporations and developers, it looks like it's going to be the current residents of Redwood City and surrounding communities. There is no other way.

Saltworks: still no plan

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 19:13:00 +0000

Just got word today from the city that DMB has pulled back it's proposal on the Saltworks Project, based on input from the scoping sessions. That means that no matter what anyone says, there is no plan for developing the Saltworks and – even more importantly – the planning process, which the city council has supported over objections from vocal minorities, is working.

So get ready for another scoping session, as well as another round of naysayers calling for the end of the process.

City Council Candidate Forum

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:20:00 +0000

There's room on the table for your idea

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:26:00 +0000

Got a call out of the blue this week from a reporter asking me about a new group in town called Redwood City Neighbors United (RCNU) whose sole purpose in life is to stop the Saltworks Project. Not discuss. Not review. Stop. No other opinion need to be offered.

OK. In our polarized world having an all or nothing position is not unusual. So I'm good with that. However, one of the founders, Dan Ponti, was indirectly quoted in the coverage in the SM Daily Journal that while "the group does not have a uniform opinion on what, if anything, should go on the site ... the effort is to take the project off the table completely so that conversation can take place."

No that tells me that Dan and his buds might actually have another idea of what to do with not only the site, but all the issues that face us. And I want to let him know...

Dan, there is room on the table for other ideas.

Look, even IF there were an actual plan on the table today from DMB (and there isn't) it will take between 18 and 24 months to complete the draft EIR. Nothing will go before the city for evaluation until that happens. Right now, DMB is still revising the plan, based on input they are getting from various public and private sources and nothing official is going to even start until they are done revising the plan. So it's not like we are going to fill and concrete over the 1400 acres tomorrow... or even next year. So we have a lot of time to consider options.

That's what our little group at Sustainable Redwood City is looking for. We'd like to see options. in fact, when it comes down to a decision, we'd like to see at least three options for what to do with the site that can go before the electorate.

And getting those options out of people opposing Saltworks is like pulling teeth on a live shark.

So, let's see the plans. Let's put them on the table. That means telling all of us what you want to do, how it's to be funded and how it will affect/benefit Redwood City.

When amendments mean nothing, but move everything forward

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:12:00 +0000

The winnowing of the DMB Saltworks Project began last week with a non-serious kerfuffle over the proposed bridge over 101. Supposedly, the bridge was supposed to handle both auto traffic, pedestrians, bikes and public transit systems, but DMB amended the proposal to say cars would not be allowed on the bridge.

Personally, I was thrilled with the amendment because we really need an auto-free option for getting over to that area. Cyclists and pedestrians put their lives in their hands crossing 101 at any of the three access points (Marsh Road, Woodside and Maple). We need that option regardless of what happens over there. (In fact, that was a statement I made directly to DMB at one of their public meetings. I wonder if that had anything to do with the decision?)

But this sent the anti-development forces into an ecstatic hissy fit. "See! See! Saltworks can't handle the traffic of a 12,000-home development!" Of course they are right. It never could. That's why the pro-development forces have never said it would. What they did say is the development that did get approved would.

This was made clear to me when Mayor Jeff Ira said that the amendment didn't concern him because if the studies showed it couldn't handle 12,000 homes they would have to build less.

You see, developers don't make more money when they build more units. They make more money building less. The fewer units, the lower the infrastructure costs, the lower the amount of building fees, the lower the overall property tax valuations... and the lower the number of units that have to be sold at below market values.

There is a balance the developers have to reach before the final plan is in place and that's what this current process is all about: finding our what the city wants from the developer that still makes a profit in the process. Right now we know that 12,000 units is not only going to be unfeasible for the area, it is also not going to be optimally profitable for DMB. The final number will be lower... much lower.

So rather than being a serious blow to the future of the development, this is actually a giant step forward to final approval.

But while we are in the process of revision, (and in case I have any pull regarding those decisions) I'd like to make a suggestion to DMB: Since rising sea level is going to be an issue not only for the Saltworks but all bayside communities, maybe the plan should include a levee system that extends beyond the Saltworks sites and protects the more inland areas as well, even as far as Redwood Shores. That would protect our good neighbors to the north in San Carlos. They can let Menlo Park, Atherton and Woodside drown in their own juices as far as I'm concerned.

Just sayin'...

Water districts get snotty on Saltworks

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:45:00 +0000

Lots of noise is being made about the Santa Clara and Alameda water districts rejecting a proposal for a water transfer from DMB to provide water for the the Saltworks development.

Only one problem: DMB hasn't proposed anything to them. It's kinda like a snotty high school princess saying she won't go to the prom with you, when you weren't even planning on asking her.

A little back story is needed. Last year, before the Saltworks proposal was submitted there was a lot of hoo-rah about where DMB was planning on getting water to support the development, simply because the city told them, "no water, no development." That's not a problem DMB said because they have all kinds of ideas including desalinization, water reclamation and ground water access. The also said they own a whole bunch of water on Southern California, enough to supply the new development and all of Redwood City for 70 years.

That last part created a stink because no one could figure out how they were going to get the water up from Kern County to Redwood City. Anyone who understands riparian rights transfer knows how it works, but since the Bay Area has to cart in its water from other places we have a hard time figuring it out. Happens all the time in the Central Valley and SoCal but this is the Bay Area, dammit. We don't do what we don't understand.

So the idea to use Kern County water was ONE of the ideas being tossed about. But it isn't in the current proposal. We won't know what will be done until sometime next year. What we do know, because DMB has been saying it for about 6 months now, is that the Kern County water transfer dropped to a low priority as DMB studied the options. It's on the table, but it's on the other side, being used as a coaster for Jay Reed's coffee cup.

This current state of affairs makes me happy. I would prefer to see the development explore unique solutions to current problems. When DMB first floated the idea (bad pun, sorry) of Kern County I took John Bruno, the GM-VP over there, to task about doing the obvious (although I was impressed by DMB's ability to pull out a simple solution.) The only way to make the best of water resources is to improve how things are done.

So to the Alameda and Santa Clara water districts, sorry you feel that way, but we don't want to dance with you, either. At least not until your attitude improves.

Save the SF Bay: Your tax dollars at work

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:05:00 +0000

Did a little digging over the past week and ground out something very interesting. Between 2003 and 2009, Save the SF Bay received more than $2.25 million from federal and state sources for their operations -- more than 15 percent of their total funding.
Funding received in 2007-2008, during the Measure W campaign was equal to the amount spent on the campaign. So, essentially the effort to subvert the Redwood City planning process was almost entirely funded by the government. Of course, that money wasn't raised for that purpose, but it all goes into a big pot.
One has to ask the question, though: if it wasn't there, would they have mounted the campaign in the first place?
More to come.

Human Trafficking seminar at Tapestry Church

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:46:00 +0000

Tapestry Church in Redwood City is continuing their year-long emphasis on the issue of human trafficking with a presentation from Touched Romania, this Thursday (August 18) at 7 p.m. in the church sanctuary.

Touched Romania is focused on the horror of both Romanian infants and women being sold into human bondage and abuse. The organization, founded by Reagan Glugosh, RN, began several years ago when Glugosh visited a Romanian pediatric ward and found dozens of abandoned children and decided to do step in. Touched Romania identifies volunteers to care for abandoned newborns, place them in foster care and maintain Casa Agar, a safe house for at-risk mothers who want to keep their babies.

The latter part of the program has established a new outreach for young women sold into sex trafficking, helping them escape their captors and put them into safe houses to reestablish their lives. To help defray the cost of the program, the women have begun making and selling jewelry while they are housed and cared for.

Glugosh will be speaking at the Church on Thursday night in hopes of raising awareness and support for the program.

Contact the church office (650-368-3821) or contact Karen Peters at Karen@tapestrypeople.com.

The dirty little secrets of polling

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:22:00 +0000

I’ve mentioned my opinion on polls and what they mean in an earlier post, but I thought it would be worthwhile to go a little deeper into the subject.

We’re coming into the season when we are going to start seeing lots and lots of stories in the media on public opinion polls, along with lots and lots of phone/online/mail-in surveys bombarding pestering us to participate. I highly encourage your participation in the process as long as you realize the results don.t mean what you might think they do.

First, polls are not part of the official decision making process in a democracy. They do not affect the decisions of decision makers either. Second, polls do not affect the established opinion but merely galvanize currently held positions, no matter what your current position is. And, third, if you already have an opinion, the sponsors of the polls (if they know what they are doing) don’t really care what you think; they want to know who doesn’t yet have an opinion.

So, on the first part, decision makers (council members, legislators, governors, presidents, etc.) don’t take polls. Polls are sponsored on behalf of partisan organizations. Even the Gallup/CBS poll is sponsored for the purpose of giving talking heads something to say but is generally biased according the leaning of the sponsor. The outcome of these kind of polls follows the Heisenberg principle that an outcome observed is affected by the presence of the observer, especially if the object of the observation is human. That’s why decision makers only rely on election results, not polls to make decisions.

In Redwood City, we see a lot of discussion about the polls taken by DMB and Save the Bay regarding the Saltworks project with lots of handwringing and despair of the city council doesn’t fall all over themselves to change direction every time a poll comes out. That’s why they don’t. They know it doesn’t mean anything.

Secondly, when was the last time a poll came out that disagreed with your position and you immediately said, “Gee, I guess I was wrong?” Right. It never happens. In fact, you probably got pissed off and sent money to the opposition or wrote a letter to the editor. It galvanized your position. Moreover, it made people who agreed with the poll results feel better about their own decision. What is important to understand is that it changed nothing. It’s called PR. And everyone, not just corporations, do it.

So if it has no affect on policy and no affect on changing opinion, why do the poll sponsors keep spending barrels of money to do it? That’s where point three comes in: The undecideds.

There are three kinds of undecideds-- the ones leaning one way, the ones leaning the other, and the people who honestly don’t know what to do. No matter what side a poll comes out supporting, it’s not going to tip the undecideds one way or the other, even if they are leaning one way or the other. That’s not a good thing for the electoral process. People need to make a decision and the more people that vote the better it is going forward. The fewer means the less satisfied we all are with the results.

So the identifying how numerous the undecideds are is extremely important to both sides. That tells you how much they have to do to convince people one way or the other.

And how do you convince them? Believe it or not, the undecideds are not influenced by fear and innuendo. They are influenced by fact. Why, because they already know that the two sides of the argument will do whatever they can to convince people on the validity of their argument. The smart ones use facts and don’t throw vague accusations around.

Sally Lieber's wetlands sugar pill

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:27:00 +0000

State Senator-wannabe Sally Lieber this week caused a bit of a stir by recommending a parcel tax to fund wetland restoration around the SF Bay. It’s a great idea, if it actually had a chance of working. Unfortunately, the idea would have virtually no affect on the restoration of the Cargill land that its target. Here’s why:
There are about 2 million households in the SF Bay Area. If every county in the area actually approved the proposed tax for $10 per household, as Save the Bay once posited in a survey, that would raise $20 million a year for wetland restoration. Nice chunk of change and very exciting... if you could get the 2/3 majority vote in each county to pass it.
But according to Save the Bay estimates, the cost of restoring the 15 thousand acres of bay wetland in the public domain would be $1.4 billion. So it would take us 70 years to raise the money needed to do the restoration.
Ah, but I hear you saying that once we put that mechanism into place then the feds would kick in more. Sorry, not according to US Senator Feinstein who said just a year ago that there would be no federal restoration funds available for the foreseeable future.
If you waited 10 years collecting that tax, it actually might be enough to buy the Cargill land, after all. Then we can get to work restoring that 1400 acres while we let the rest of the 15,000 fester, right? Not quite.
The Saltworks site is unlike any other salt pond on the bay, because this is where all the salt collected from the bay ended up. It’s a highly engineered site designed for the final stages of salt harvesting. As a result, it is the most toxic of all the sites. So now you have to start raising money... after you’ve blown your 10-year $200M accumulation to buy the site... to restore it. That restoration cost can be anything from between $100,000 per acre to $1 million per acre. Potential cost for restoring that 1400 acres could end up being as much as the cost of restoring the 15,000 waiting and ready. But wait, there’s more!
Tides are going to be rising in the bay, whether we start restoration or not. The estimates from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission say all the wetlands are going to be under water in 20 years if we don’t start building levees soon. That means that the land slated for restoration... which is still toxic. Will start leeching salt into the bay and destroying the delicate ecosystem. That’s not to mention the developed land that will be going under water as well, sending all kinds of neat pollutants into the water... unless we build levees.
And how are we going to build those levees? Hey, guess what, there goes our restoration fund!
Here is an incontrovertible fact: The wetlands we restored were done with the significant help of the private sector (i.e. Cargill). They didn’t do it completely altruistically. They did it because the land they gave up was absolutely useless for anything but harvesting salt. The Saltworks site is very different from the rest of the 40,000 acres they gave up, because it CAN be developed. And they are willing to restore even more of it for the opportunity to make some additional money on the back end.
The choice we have before us is to suspend our grip on reality and start believing there is a publicly financed solution to this issue -- where one has never existed before -- or start really considering the option of a public/private partnership in the restoration of bay wetlands.
We really can do this, folks, but only if we are willing to put aside partisan bickering and social bias and start coming to the table to talk.
But why is this such a great idea if it won't work (as I stated at the beginning of this post)? Because if something like this goes on the ballot, like pretty much every local tax proposal that goes to the electorate, can rarely get the approval of the electorate, even by a simple majority. Asking people to pay for wetland restoration when basic services are being axed just doesn't fly. And expecting it to pass in EVERY county in the Bay Area is absolute madness. But if we put it on the ballot, it ends the discussion and we can move on to actually getting something done.

Bike friendly Caltrain

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:34:00 +0000

Got a cool heads up from CalTrain's Seamus Murphy today about commuter's use of mass transit and bike riding. The article went into a lot of comparisons regarding the relative friendliness of major metropolitan transportation systems to cyclists. And low-and-behold, Caltrain comes up as the friendliest in the country with 9 percent of the ridership coming from cyclists. BART got relatively low marks. The article goes on to say that most systems merely "tolerate" rather than celebrate them.
Now if you are a cyclist that thinks CalTrain sucks for cyclists, I don't denigrate your opinion. Just be glad you're here and not New York.

Time to step up folks

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:44:00 +0000

Last night, the city council voted to start reducing it's contribution to human services(essentially assistance to homeless families) by 1/3 every year for the next three years until they are no longer making contributions into the system. It's a sad decision but fiscally responsible. The city will continue to provide finding for the Shelter Network, but what they do in the county will be reduced.

What can we do about this? We can complain, or we can roll up our sleeves and get involved. More specifically, we can open our wallets.

This year, the amount that will be cut is $60,000. That isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but to the city it's a decision to cut needed services. The purpose of government is to do things that we, as the citizens can't do ourselves. So it is time to pony up. There have to be 60 people in town that can come up with $1000 each. Or 600 that can put in $100 each. There are all kinds of charities around that can use your help. Here are a couple right off the bat"

Second Harvest Food Bank
1051 Bing Street
San Carlos, CA 94070-5320
(650)610-0800

Maple Street Shelter
1580A Maple Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 364-1150

Redwood Family House
110 Locust Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 364-8264

That provides food and housing, but there are many others, one great one you may not have heard of is Street Church. This organization has been around for several years and is doing some serious good.

It's time for us to step up and do what's right, not just complain about what someone else isn't doing.

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:32:00 +0000

There is a particularly virulent trend in politics these days of casting innuendo and hurling epithets at people for no good reason other than that they aren’t part of your ilk. Redwood City is not immune to this trend. Case in point, the beloved storyteller of the Redwood City library system, Chuck Ashton.

Chuck had been a mainstay of the library for years as the youth services manager, and after retiring, continued on in a consulting role and volunteer. Chuck was known in the educational community as a valuable resource who brought amazing storytelling skills and management acumen to a system that dearly needs all the resource it can get in these budget cutting times.

However, after months of badgering by a fringe citizens group called the Committee to Save Schaberg, Chuck decided enough was enough and resigned as volunteer and consultant. Just this week I learned that he is now in the hospital facing emergency heart surgery. The stress caused by the group’s harassment may only be coincidental.

The first two sentences in the paragraph above are the truth, the last is an innuendo. That’s an example of what civic-minded people face almost on a daily basis in Redwood City from the fringes.

And it’s not just people in city government getting this abuse. Recently the State fined the Redwood City/San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce for failing to file on time a report of campaign contributions to Measure W two years ago. That’s what the real story was. Not that they didn’t do it, but that they didn’t do it by the deadline. The report from the state said there was no effort to hide the donation, just that they missed the deadline.

That opened the sluice gate for veiled accusations from the fringes that not only proof that chamber corrupt but that individuals now on the city council, simply because they were members of the chamber, were also defrauding voters. The accusation makes it look like the chamber is running the city council. But if you happened to look at who is on the chamber board of directors, you would find that Sequoia Hospital, Kaiser, Hospital, Palo Alto Medical Foundation are also represented on the board. Maybe the medical industry is really running Redwood City?

People who toss about rumor and innuendo as the basis of their argument have been a part of American politics since the earliest days. But it doesn’t validate their position.

Docktown on the docket

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:40:00 +0000

Tonight the Redwood City city council will consider buying the Docktown community . This, in my humble opinion, is a great idea.Docktown has been around for several decades, growing up after the Frank Tannery burned down in 1968. The residents are, pretty much, they only community in town that maintains a sustainable approach to living in Redwood City.
The residents provide an enormous service to Redwood City by keeping the estuary clean...
(See the rest of the story at the Redwood City Patch)

Lies, damned lies and polls

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 19 May 2011 20:23:00 +0000

Ya gotta be careful with this polling stuff. For example, news hit yesterday of a poll with the headline:

Environmental group's poll shows majority of Redwood City residents oppose Saltworks project

Based on this poll, Save the Bay thinks the EIR process should be stopped in it tracks. It pushes the notion that because this poll of 350 people in a city of 70,000 should be the deciding factor in the future of the Saltworks proposal.
What? Do they think this is a mid-term race for county supervisor?

More at the Redwood City Patch

Movin' on up

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 06 May 2011 23:59:00 +0000

Today, the Local Motive has moved to the Redwood City Patch... at least for now. you can catch up on the latest post here.

Caltrain puts a bandaid on a gaping wound...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:18:00 +0000

... and takes a big step backward.

Last week, the Caltrain board said the staff has come up with a potential "solution" to their deficit without closing stations that pick up a handful of people every week. They are going to borrow money from next year's budget and close the Baby Bullet Train service.

Not only does this put Caltrain in a deeper hole next year, but it takes us further away from advancing the system technology. So once again, a small vocal minority is driving us further into the past.

Thanks everyone.